In Control, the FX-8320 is same performance as the Celeron G3900. However, it's a much worse value for money, as it's $44 more expensive!
FX-8320
No clear advantages
Celeron G3900
- Is 2 years and 10 months newer – Sep 01, 2015 vs Oct 23, 2012
- Is 2 years and 10 months newer
- Up to 50% cheaper – $44.04 vs $88.10
- Up to 50% cheaper
- Up to 51% better value in Control – $0.17 vs $0.35/FPS
- Up to 51% better value in Control
- Consumes up to 59% less energy – 51 vs 125 Watts
- Consumes up to 59% less energy
Control FPS Calculator
FX-8320 vs Celeron G3900: Comparison of performance and price
FX-8320
Oct 23rd, 2012
Average FPS
245 FPS
100%
Min 1% FPS
160 FPS
100%
Price, $
$88.1
49%
Value, $/FPS
$0.35/FPS
49%
Celeron G3900
Sep 1st, 2015
Average FPS
245 FPS
100%
Min 1% FPS
160 FPS
100%
Price, $
$44.04
100%
Value, $/FPS
$0.17/FPS
100%
Synthetic Benchmarks
The FX-8320 vs Celeron G3900 in synthetic CPU benchmarks
Performance Specifications
The FX-8320 vs Celeron G3900 in core CPU performance specifications
FX-8320
Oct 23rd, 2012
Cores
8-core
100%
L3 Cache
8 MB
100%
Base Frequency
3.5 GHz
100%
Turbo Frequency
4 GHz
100%
Max. DDR3 RAM Speed
MHz
Celeron G3900
Sep 1st, 2015
Cores
2-core
25%
L3 Cache
4 MB
50%
Base Frequency
2.8 GHz
80%
Turbo Frequency
GHz
Max. DDR4 RAM Speed
2133 MHz
100%
Specifications
Comparison of core specifications
FX-8320 Oct 23rd, 2012 | SpecificationsComparison of core specifications | Celeron G3900 Sep 1st, 2015 |
|---|---|---|
| General | ||
| Oct 23rd, 2012 | Release Date | Sep 1st, 2015 |
| $169.00 | MSRP | – |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
| AM3+ | Socket | LGA1151 |
| 125W | Power Consumption | 51W |
| Other Features | ||
| DDR3 | RAM | 2133 MHz (DDR3), 2133 MHz (DDR4) |
| On certain motherboards (Chipset feature) | Integrated GPU | Intel HD 510 |
Overclockable | Overclock Support | Not Overclockable |
